This Pyramid Shows How All The World's Wealth Is Distributed And The Gigantic Gap Between Rich And Poorhttp://www.businessinsider.com/global-wealth-pyramid-2013-10/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:14:11 -0500Joe Weisenthalhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525aad6c69bedd96597adfaeJeff in TexasSun, 13 Oct 2013 10:25:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525aad6c69bedd96597adfae
@Doug in Virginia
Thanks for that, the confusion between what income is and what wealth is continues forever. Someone earlier in this series of comments equated $1250 per person wealth to $0.50 per day income (if I remember properly), trying to show how divvying up the wealth would have little effect on the average person. I didn't get the connection. If you take the ratio of the two, it comes out to nearly seven years, which doesn't mean anything, either.
The biggest effect in my opinion from a highly skewed distribution of wealth, which Justice Scalia obviously does not agree with, is the disproportionate amount of influence by wealthy individuals and corporations that it has on the socio-economic process. To me that's the biggest problem with the unequal distribution of wealth, not supply and demand--what I just described is an unstable situation, and is often addressed by a repressive police state or a revolution. Neither one is desirable.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5256f579ecad04f02fe5d8bdAlex ZThu, 10 Oct 2013 14:44:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5256f579ecad04f02fe5d8bd
Rather than a pyramid, this should be represented as a Bell-Curve. There is nothing unnatural about such a distribution, as it occurs across all populations and all times.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5256c0736bb3f78641b9faccMBoyceWIThu, 10 Oct 2013 10:57:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5256c0736bb3f78641b9facc
Several things wrong with this, and all worldwide based stats: 1) $10,000 in many countries is really good!, 2) the groupings are odd. What is the thought process here other than propaganda? So we have $0 - $10,000 and then $10,001 to $100,00 then $100,001 to $1,000,000? I get the scale affect where 68% of the world wide adult population is under $10,001 and so few are in the groups above, but would like to see if broken down more into equal deciles or similar. 3) over simplification for propaganda purposes and not looking at how the dollar figures relate to the cost of living in geographical regions and looking at smaller groupings vs worldwide views.
First of all, nearly all attributes are similar to the distribution shown here. For example athleticism. A big percent of people have little, a bigger group has more and a very small group have a ton. Intelligence is similar. Etc.
Second, we really need to stop of the worldwide stats. There are far too many variables involved that affect wealth distribution to even have an honest discussion about this topic. We need to look at political structure, belief systems, culture systems, climates, genetics, etc. A better thing to look at would be to look at intra country, intra state/province/region, urban vs suburban vs rural, etc. The disparity say in China with a communist totalitarian system is has much more disparity than say the USA, Germany, France, Canada, etc. Same goes for many 3rd world regions like many areas of Africa. Within the USA we can look at state to state or region to region and also take into consideration that in Manhattan is costs far more to live than Bizmark, ND.
Too flawed to even have a decent honest discussion. Is there an issue here? Hard to tell. The idea that we should all have the same is silly. We should all have the same opportunity and then it is up to you. How hard do you want to work? How much are you willing to sacrifice?
I for one am someone that grew up lower middle class where my parents struggled all of my childhood. I decided I did not wan that. I paid for myself to go to college (my parents both chose to drop out of HS). I was the first one in my family to finish HS. I was the first to be a varsity athelete. I was the first to make all conference. I was the first to make all state. I was the first to make All America. I was the first to make a Deans List in college. I was the first to go to college. I was the first to make $100,000/yr (my parents were making a combined $60,000 the year I made $100k for the first time). I was the first millionaire (by 30 and not because of stock options... all cash from hard work). I did all of that without taking any handouts. I did take government back student loans but would have taken private loans if they were not available. I worked many 100 hour weeks and even now working 70hrs in a week is common and I still find time to coach my son's baseball team and watch my daughter in her HS sports and all the other family tasks.
A huge problem in the USA for example is we have a tremendous amount of lazy people. We really do. When I tell my story to HS kids or church groups people think I am totally nuts for working 100 hr weeks, risking my credit and taking on loans against my house, etc. to build a company. But my story is not alone. Many other people I know that have successful business have similar stories. The difference between us and others is something internal. I wish others would find that in them and do the same. I have tried many times to help hundreds of others to do the same and so few people have it. They give up quick. They don't want to work, 70,80,90,100 hrs per week. They don't want to take loans against their cars, homes, etc. I see it my sons baseball. He is it yet in HS but has colleges looking at him. He is driven. He takes risks. He puts in dozens of hours per week in his sport. He is also a 3.5GPA kid and still manages to play a ton of Xbox. Other kids look at him like he is nuts. They ask all the time why he works so hard. We are just puzzled by this.
My point is that maybe the distribution seems so out of whack because that is the way it is supposed to be. Very few people willing to do what it takes to change it and changing it starts with themselves not from the top down.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52567a02eab8ea9e20bb728aDoug in VirginiaThu, 10 Oct 2013 05:57:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52567a02eab8ea9e20bb728a
If you read the sentence prior to the one you cited, "people in power" refers to politicians. The "change in their way of life" is improved political prospects from envy populism. I see that that wasn't as clear as I had intended.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525628596bb3f7711b8b4576kljlkThu, 10 Oct 2013 00:08:57 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525628596bb3f7711b8b4576
D In V wrote:
"The people without resources aren't going to see much change in their way of life, but the people in power sure will. "
"I didn't say it would affect the wealthy more, now did I? I like how you just sorta made that part up."
On the whole, I don't have any problems with your analysis. I objected to the statement that people without resources would not be affected by receiving $30k.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255d8d36bb3f750088b4572HahahaWed, 09 Oct 2013 18:29:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255d8d36bb3f750088b4572
"Yes, of course. "
Glad to know I set you straight.
You are welcome!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255c9d3eab8ea77378b457fDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 17:25:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255c9d3eab8ea77378b457f
Read the caption, and the article. You are including children in your count, they are not.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255b02b6bb3f7fb352630beQuatguyWed, 09 Oct 2013 15:36:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255b02b6bb3f7fb352630be
The pyramid is bogus as the population numbers do not add up to >7 Billion people (i.e. current world population)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a9feeab8ea847600e442Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 15:09:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a9feeab8ea847600e442
Yes, of course.
You then came up with a ridiculous straw man of 50% reduction in buying, and I came up with an equally ridiculous response.
The trick is to allow people to build wealth, which is a good thing as it buys economic security, by a combination of thrift as well as selective use of credit to enable consuming big ticket items as they are being paid for.
Just saying that we need everybody to spend to create consumption is sort of short sighted, because it does directly conflict with creating wealth. You need both.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a742eab8ea966e00e449HahahaWed, 09 Oct 2013 14:58:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a742eab8ea966e00e449
"You were making the case that spending was good for the economy"
Of course spending is good for the economy.
Obviously, if everyone saves and no one spends, than no one has an income, and thus no wealth is created.
My spending is your income, and vice versa.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a60deab8ead96e00e448Wayne CaswellWed, 09 Oct 2013 14:53:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255a60deab8ead96e00e448
I find that a much better illustration of the growing wealth gap is the short video clip at <a href="http://www.mhealthtalk.com/2013/03/wealth-inequality-healthcare-and-the-economy/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.mhealthtalk.com/2013/03/wealth-inequality-healthcare-and-the-economy/</a>.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52559effecad04a210e7e55cDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 14:22:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52559effecad04a210e7e55c
You were making the case that spending was good for the economy, and that lack of spending was bad. So I just made the logical next step for you, since that's what a big portion of the country has been doing.
But I know what you said, yes, and I am clearly not retarded.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52559d0169beddc041e7e557replyWed, 09 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52559d0169beddc041e7e557
"Now someone like Bill Gates has so much wealth they he will not be be able to spend it all in his life time. That means if remains locked in the supply side."
Doug explained to you so clearly that even a second grade would understand that money are never "locked". There are ONLY 3 possibilities:
1. Spend them - creating demand
2. Invest them - creating jobs, creating demand
3. Save them - creating capital available for others to invest, creating jobs and creating demand
What is so hard to understand that there are not too much money under the mattress comparative to the GDP to justify what you say. What you say, does not make any sense - it is completely illogicalhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525598ce69bedd043ae7e552copy and paste everyday same thingWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:56:30 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525598ce69bedd043ae7e552
Life is easy when you copy and paste everyday the same thingshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255981becad044f07e7e551replyWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:53:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255981becad044f07e7e551
You sound good in what you say, same like Obama. However, all you actions, as well as Obama's actions, speak louder than words. You are a typical shill for that one 1% of the 1% who support taxing the middle class to disappearance while giving all the loopholes to the puppet masters.
Hopefully they will throw you some crums for being a good serf in charge of PRhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525597d169bedd9037e7e54dHahahaWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:52:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525597d169bedd9037e7e54d
"Let's all go into debt to buy things we could do without"
Did I say anything about that?
Are you retarded?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255940deab8ead54700e442bdbrWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:36:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255940deab8ead54700e442
It would be interesting to see how this has trended over time. You see that a lot for the US, but not for the world.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525591f2eab8ea434500e444bdbrWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:27:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525591f2eab8ea434500e444
A quick search of the study reveals: "Net worth or “wealth” is defined as the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, less their debts."
Also it doesn't consider other benefits. People who live in countries with big social programs don't have huge amounts of savings because they don't need it. 40% of that top pyramid are in the US, where $1M just merely equates to an inflation-adjusted $30k/year for retirement. That isn't poor, but it isn't rich either.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255905beab8eaa64000e442Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:20:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255905beab8eaa64000e442
I should probably clarify for the wannabe command economists in the crowd, who would then say that we could just institute price controls...if everybody already has "enough money to effectively retire," then you're going to see a significant dropoff in people who want to keep on working for what they used to get paid. Who needs to make $1/day when you have $30,000 already?
So you'll have to force people to work under penalty of law if you want them to do that, and of course monitor the quality of their work. Are we happy with the result yet?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52558f43eab8eabf3b00e445Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:15:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52558f43eab8eabf3b00e445
It wouldn't be per year.
And I think the 95% of the world's population that doesn't live in the US might be ticked off.
Why not do the calculation just for people that live on your street? That would be a really really big number.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52558e406bb3f755762630baDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 13:11:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52558e406bb3f755762630ba
I didn't say it would affect the wealthy more, now did I? I like how you just sorta made that part up.
"Not counting the inflation effect you mention"...well, sure. If you don't take into account what will really happen, then it's easy to imagine all sorts of things.
If everybody suddenly has $30,000, then the people with the best products for sale are going to be able to raise prices dramatically, and that will ripple down through the economy. Prices are not going to stay what they used to be, and a new equilibrium will be established.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525589396bb3f7566d2630b7w.eWed, 09 Oct 2013 12:50:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525589396bb3f7566d2630b7
if you split all that money between say 400 million Americans. we would all make 600K a year. Think about that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255881469beddfe12e7e54fMario Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:45:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255881469beddfe12e7e54f
Damn good points Johnhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525587bdeab8eaa02f00e442kljlkWed, 09 Oct 2013 12:43:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525587bdeab8eaa02f00e442
While redistributing all the wealth is unlikely to solve all the world's problems, your assertion that it would affect the wealthy more than the poor is completely untrue.
For the majority of the world's poor that live on about $1 a day, $30,000 would be an unimaginable change to their living conditions. They would go from toiling at crushing labor under near starvation conditions to 'retirement'. Not counting the inflation effects you mention, they would be able to afford food, shelter, clothing, and maybe some medical care.
Meanwhile, dropping someone from $5billion to $5million would have comparatively little impact on their lives. They would still enjoy extraordinarily high levels of housing, food, clothing, transportation, and medical care relative to the world median. Giving up a Gulfstream is a relatively minor thing compared to starving to death.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525586c869bedd2b13e7e54djust.a.guyWed, 09 Oct 2013 12:39:36 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525586c869bedd2b13e7e54d
Why do you foolishly cling to the notion that for one person to have wealth that demand has to disappear from the world?
Tomorrow I win the lottery and become a billionaire. Here are three scenarios
1) I stick my wealth in my mattress in physical paper. What happens here? Deflation. Currency disappears but there is no less demand the next day for anything.
2) I stick my wealth into NEWLY CREATED bonds or equities. Then I'm taking other peoples' demand and re-channeling it into new projects. sewer systems, schools, new companies, factory expansions... INVESTMENTS.
3) I buy existing investments. Stocks already issued on NYSE. Bonds already held by mutual funds. Real Estate that someone else already owns.
They just won the lottery like I did yesterday. and the process repeats.
What you lack is a basic understanding of what money and wealth IS and what its function is in an economy.
There is a difference between an ideological viewpoint that wealth should be more evenly distributed across individuals' balance sheets (an endless and worthy debate), and the notion that when wealth is concentrated on one person's balance sheet that there is an economic effect beyond inequity . That somehow it materially slows down the economy by "destroying demand" and this is a ridiculous notion that you should absolve yourself of.
Your homework assignment is to go read Ludwig von Mises _The Theory of Money and Credit_ and learn what money actually is.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557e0469bedd3e7ce7e552Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 12:02:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557e0469bedd3e7ce7e552
Those are just millionaires.
There's like 9 million people in the US that meet that standard.
One in 25ish adults, something like that.
You may already know some.
I know some of them post here.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557cd36bb3f7a5502630caDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:57:07 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557cd36bb3f7a5502630ca
Oh, right, good point, what was I thinking?
Let's all go into debt to buy things we could do without. That should help keep the economy moving ahead, right?
My apologies if you slept through the financial crisis, but, yeah, forgoing demand is the way to create wealth. Sorry to break it to you.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557ad669bedd1472e7e55eClownFartWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:48:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557ad669bedd1472e7e55e
Please provide addresses of these 32 million. I'm sure there are plenty of people would like to pay them a visit.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255775eecad049445e7e55aHahahaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:33:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255775eecad049445e7e55a
"that wealth doesn't come from demand, it comes from foregoing demand and creating savings."
So, if we all spend 50% less, companies' sales and profit will soars and the stock market will follow and we will all be very wealthy ?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525574446bb3f77a432630b5Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:20:36 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525574446bb3f77a432630b5
If you were a scientist, I would point out to you that that's like saying power and energy are the same thing, when clearly they are not. Power is energy over time. Wealth is income less demand over time.
The fact that they have some relationship doesn't make them the same. Sorry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557368eab8ea640300e44eDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:16:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557368eab8ea640300e44e
Wealth is money you already have (for argument's sake). Income is new money you are receiving. Yes, you can spend both, but that doesn't make them the same. They are completely independent concepts. Me having wealth doesn't affect your income at all.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255722f69bedd795de7e551Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:11:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255722f69bedd795de7e551
Economies actually try to develop wealth, which is income in excess of demand.
That wealth creates investment capital, which then makes the economy grow.
If all income is going right out the door as demand, then you don't have any investment capital.
I feel bad talking down to you, but it's really odd that you continue to come here and spam things which are just completely wrong. Please stop it, it detracts from the forum.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557186ecad04d83be7e560H8MeNotWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52557186ecad04d83be7e560
Money he "gives" away is purely for tax reasons. Last year, tax deduction from charitable donations saved Americans $54 billion dollars. Also, when discussing supply side economics, the trickle down aspect of that has not happened. Estimates are American corporations and the wealthy are sitting on nearly $1.5 trillion dollars of liquidity. So much for Reaganomics....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255717a6bb3f7de3d2630b9Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255717a6bb3f7de3d2630b9
This another, apparently self-taught myth that I'm sure we'll see you continue to spam long after it's been refuted.
developed (OECD) countries are now less than half of world GDP (which is how you measure demand, if I need to spell that out). The share of world GDP going to developing economies continues to grow.
<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/economydevelopingcountriessettoaccountfornearly60ofworldgdpby2030accordingtonewestimates.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/economydevelopingcountriessettoaccountfornearly60ofworldgdpby2030accordingtonewestimates.htm</a>
You have this antiquated world view that if someone from the US is no longer getting $20/hour to assemble transmissions, but if somebody in Mexico is getting $10/hour, then that reduces world demand. It doesn't, because more people can be hired, and the things they purchase cost less in their local economy, so the number of people raised out of poverty goes up, not down.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556f8969beddf95ae7e55fkbbkkbWed, 09 Oct 2013 11:00:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556f8969beddf95ae7e55f
Note the "assets that are truly our own"http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556f116bb3f7ad3a2630bdjohn1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:58:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556f116bb3f7ad3a2630bd
Again both wealth and income can be spent so in that regard they are the same.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556e866bb3f7e0332630c4john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:56:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556e866bb3f7e0332630c4
Wealth beyond what one can spend in a life time removes that from the demand side of the economy and puts in in the supply side.
"Having wealth means you were able to stay ahead of your financial demands." And that is looking at the issue from only one persons point of view. It's a system so it's billions of people and most will never achieve that. so not only is it looking at the issue from a single persons standpoint it involved a very limited amount of people in the total system.
"You can have a lot of income and no wealth if you have no discipline" and your point? Yes that person is a fool but at least the money they are taking in is going back into the economy on the demand side. Well maybe. That could also be cause by bad investments so some of that money could stay on the supply side of the economy.
Sorry but I know there are two main parts to the economy supply and demand. The funny part is even the supply siders know there are two parts. Their problem is they think taking care of the supply side will take care of the demand side and that is false.
See you're now ignoring that. Again the economy is supply and demand and it has to have both with some balance. Too much supply and there will not be enough customers for that supply. Too much demand and inflation is the problem.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556cd66bb3f7f6332630c5john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:48:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556cd66bb3f7f6332630c5
Most demand comes from China? Here's the thing about that. Someone making $4,000 a year will not be doing things like buying a car. Also know why companies move their manufacturing over there? It's cheaper and normally the most expensive cost for any company is wage costs so they are doing it to lower their total wage costs. Total wage costs is where most demand comes from so they are directly lowering world demand.
So no the folks in china are not generating that much demand compared to the amount of demand that was in the system. And company are doing that on purpose. Companies hate wage costs and they want to lower that as much as they can. That directly hits the amount of world demand and reduces it.
And you are missing that fundamental point. Places like China remove demand from the world and they do not replace it with much. In fact places like China cannot function without world demand to answer. They just keep removing more demand then they replace.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556b66ecad04d031e7e556john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:42:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556b66ecad04d031e7e556
Both income and wealth can be spent. So in that regard they are the same.
And yes you are correct about SS. The US does have that safety net. So how much is $20,000 a year coming in going to extend out the $150,000 or so median wealth holdings that is more easily accessible?
And it's not about Seniors doing fine or not. It's about how much of their wealth will get spent in their retirement. How much of that wealth will go from the supply side of the economy to the demand side before they die.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556b15ecad04af2fe7e55cDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:41:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556b15ecad04af2fe7e55c
I'm just pointing out that wealth has little to do with demand. Having wealth means you were able to stay ahead of your financial demands. You can have a lot of income and no wealth if you have no discipline; or you can have a lot of wealth and little income if you have discipline and some luck along the way.
You're just fundamentally misguided about whether the wealth of a few billionaires affects the man on the street. You're assuming it does. I'm challenging you to say why that is. I don't think you can do it...you believe a myth.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556a6e69beddb452e7e551Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:38:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556a6e69beddb452e7e551
There are more people in China than in the whole "developed world", right?
And China is less than a quarter of the world's population.
Most of the demand comes from the developing economies.
You miss the fundamental point that wealth doesn't come from demand, it comes from foregoing demand and creating savings.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556a31ecad04722de7e54djohn1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:37:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556a31ecad04722de7e54d
Here's the part you're missing it's not a battle of supply beating demand or demand beating supply. It's about a better balance.
The world economy needs a better balance between the two. With no demand there is no economy same with no supply. It has to have both and they have to be in better balance.
That's the point. It's not 100% or 0%. It's a better balance.
Stop with the black and white thinking.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556983ecad04b22fe7e557john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:34:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556983ecad04b22fe7e557
"wealth confiscation" and in just two word you have removed all taxes. Doing that you have removed all governments. Congratulations.
You can put (I) all you want in your posts but with just those two world you have shown you are extremely far right wing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255683f6bb3f7692d2630b6john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:29:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255683f6bb3f7692d2630b6
And that's a tough one to find.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate</a>
Take a look at the list and see how many on the list are showing rates from years ago. I think a more reasonable way is to take a look at the developed world. Those will have much more current numbers and since most world demand (end user) comes from there its a reasonable way to look at it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556647ecad04c728e7e54fDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:20:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556647ecad04c728e7e54f
This is the problem with you being self-taught in economics, john. Your teacher isn't very good.
Wealth is not income.
Far more is spent by people with no "wealth" than by people with billions, because there are more than a million people around the world for every biliionare.
On a global basis, it doesn't make an appreciable difference how much Bill Gates' investment holdings are priced at the moment.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525565a069beddfb40e7e55dDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:18:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525565a069beddfb40e7e55d
Wealth is not the same as income.
You could say that all US retirees who qualify for social security benefits have as part of their "wealth" the net present value of the income stream from social security, which is around $20,000/year for middle income people. If we assume that retirees will retire at 65 and live for thirteen years, the NPV of that money is around $200,000 at current inflation rates.
And then add Medicare onto that.
Seniors are doing just fine. It's the folks who aren't working at all and don't have any government income stream that are hurting, not to mention the folks who are working and paying into payroll taxes and are now being forced to pay inflated health insurance rates to keep early retiree's costs low.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255652f69bedd183fe7e556love-itWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:16:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255652f69bedd183fe7e556
How to express the love for those who always seem to know so much better than anyone else what is good for other people.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525564cf6bb3f707292630b4john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:14:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525564cf6bb3f707292630b4
Median wealth in the US in 2007 is $109,500 by household.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States</a>
Going by a low number of people per household of 2 equals about $55,000 per person.
And with retirement most of that will get spend and end up on the demand side of the economy within those people's life time. That last part is key.
Folks like Bill Gate will probably not be able to spend all the wealth he has in his life time. That removes that wealth from the demand side of the economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525564596bb3f797262630bcfactsWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:12:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525564596bb3f797262630bc
Your....poor...stuck...perceptions. Your...sad....one-track.....deluded....mind.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525563f26bb3f72c202630c6factsWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:10:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525563f26bb3f72c202630c6
Certainly the Rule of Law has been intensely trashed since 2008 but "wealth confiscation?" 2 cheers for revolutionary wannabeshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525563e86bb3f782242630bfDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:10:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525563e86bb3f782242630bf
The billionaires are worth a combined $5 trillion, per forbes. That would be about 1000 billionaires at an average of $5B each.
If we divided that up among the world's 4B adults, everybody would get $1250, or another fifty cents / hour in wages.
Sort of makes that whole "envy" thing look ridiculous, doesn't it? There aren't enough of these people to make a difference to the rest of the world.
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/03/09/mapping-the-wealth-of-the-worlds-billionaires/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/03/09/mapping-the-wealth-of-the-worlds-billionaires/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556305ecad043420e7e552Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 10:07:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52556305ecad043420e7e552
What do you think the world unemployment rate is?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255622b69beddcc38e7e568john1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:03:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255622b69beddcc38e7e568
Folks in the US would fall in the middle two. $10,000 to about $300,000.
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43057.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43057.pdf</a>
The $300,000 is the median amount of wealth held by folks 55 to 64 years old. That's around the highest amount of any age group.
Now the key part is that includes things like housing so to access that money one need to sell the house or do something like a reverse mortgage. One can sell the house and move into a smaller one or rent.
At that age that money is going to retirement. Since a large part of that is housing its not really accessible. I think a reasonable number would be about 50% of that wealth is locked up in housing. That means about $150,000 can be used to live on during retirement. Now how many years will that last? 10 years would probably be a high number.
But the key part of that wealth is that it most of it will end up in the demand side of the economy as people spend it to live. Some might die earlier and not use it all but others will out live their saves.
Now someone like Bill Gates has so much wealth they he will not be be able to spend it all in his life time. That means if remains locked in the supply side.
That's the issue and even though the folks in the US hold more wealth most people wealth will get spend in their life time so it goes back into the demand side of the economy. People like Bill Gates will not have much of their money do that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255606aecad04ec17e7e55dDoug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 09:55:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255606aecad04ec17e7e55d
If you took all that 97T wealth of the top 0.7% and distributed it among the 3.2B people with less than 10K...they would only have 30K each.
So it's not like we would be setting these people up to retire comfortably.
Not to mention that:
a) people tend not to do very well with preserving money that was given to them, vs. money they earned;
b) prices would rise to match the money in circulation, so the standard of living wouldn't dramatically improve.
The whole backstory around wealth inequality is primarily used as a tool by those in power to try to get resource from people who look like they have them.
The people without resources aren't going to see much change in their way of life, but the people in power sure will.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555ea16bb3f76a172630c6Fiat GamesWed, 09 Oct 2013 09:48:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555ea16bb3f76a172630c6
It's not just the bailout, it's the inevitable outcome of giving one group a monopoly on fake currency issuance without external costs. Whatever this class wants to fund (i.e. equities) is bid up to artificial prices that couldn't exist under a sound money paradigm. We saw a glimpse of this when Wall Street doubled housing prices in the early 2000's ... pocketing commissions along the way. Until the currency is backed by something tangible, capital will race away from labor.
Fortunately nothing cures extreme monetary imbalances like extreme monetary imbalances.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555e846bb3f7851b2630bejohn1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:47:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555e846bb3f7851b2630be
And how much wealth do all those billionaires hold?
That's the real question and problem.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555d65eab8ea945400e44ajohn1066Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:43:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555d65eab8ea945400e44a
And you're missing the bigger picture. Most all that wealth at the top is on the supply side of the economy. It is not on the demand side.
And example is Bill Gates. Bill has been spending about 10 years giving away his money. He's given away about $20 billion in that amount of time. Most of that is has gone into the demand side of the economy. That's helpful and its doing so good work. Now the problem. Just last year Bill made $10 billion. So in just one year he has made half of what he has given away in about 10 years.
He cannot even give away his money faster then he is making money. Now the money he's making and holding is on the supply side of the economy.
So using the picture above over 80% of all the world wealth is in the supply side of the economy. That does not leave much demand to drive the economy.
And that's the problem. It has to be better balanced.
How does one know it's better balanced? A much lower unemployment rate and a reasonably amount of inflation in the system without the central banks trying their hardest to get some inflation in the economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555748eab8ea1c4400e459J ChapmanWed, 09 Oct 2013 09:16:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555748eab8ea1c4400e459
Great diagram -- it would be interesting to see how the world's different economic platforms play a role in all of this: Government inefficiencies, fair vs free trade, capitalist vs. socialist, dictatorships vs. democracies. While it's nice to have a neat picture to look at but somewhat inaccurate if the goal is to criticize wealth in general, which unfortunately diagrams like these have been used to do.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555203eab8ea353f00e444PhoneBillWed, 09 Oct 2013 08:54:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52555203eab8ea353f00e444
Lets see a similar diagram of the distribution of government assistance and foreign aid as a percentage of taxes paid. I'm guessing we'll see a very low (if not zero) amount paid by those receiving the most assistance. Perhaps instead of harping on who controls the wealth we should look at who contributes to the betterment of mankind and who is a drain on society.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554d90ecad049976e7e555wtbirds92Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:35:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554d90ecad049976e7e555
That's what when you bailout banks and print money (QE)!!! The Rich get Richer and the Poor and Middle Class Get Poorer!!! It's not rocket science.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554c01eab8ea2c3300e444Jon PWed, 09 Oct 2013 08:28:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554c01eab8ea2c3300e444
I am pretty sure there is a label up there under the pyramid that says it includes number of adults, meaning children are not included.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554812ecad04a767e7e572hippicklesWed, 09 Oct 2013 08:12:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554812ecad04a767e7e572
Where is the rest of the world's population? This pyramid only adds up to about 4.7 billion. According to Wolfram Alpha the 2013 world population estimate is 7.1 billion. This pyramid is missing about a third of the population.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255436069bedd3d74e7e559Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:52:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255436069bedd3d74e7e559
Not really, you only need a positive net worth of $10,000, which is not that hard in terms of possessions.
In any event, going into debt doesn't make you more deserving of a raise.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255417a69beddb671e7e557basicssWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:43:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255417a69beddb671e7e557
again you're not deducting household debt - mortgages, credit cards, etc. control of wealth is basically debt, stock or land ownership.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540d569bedd0272e7e550relativeWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:41:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540d569bedd0272e7e550
maybe not in new york - this is global pyramid so $1m is VERY relative.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540a0eab8ea9a1400e44anegative net worthWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:40:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540a0eab8ea9a1400e44a
you're forgetting personal debthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554093eab8ea921b00e446Oh pleaseWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:40:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52554093eab8ea921b00e446
This narrative is getting tired and old. All it has done is create anger where none previously existed. Ex. The wife of the injured NYC biker claimed class warfare. Really?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540216bb3f78e5c2630c8simple solutionWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:38:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525540216bb3f78e5c2630c8
just get out of debt and you're practically in the top 1/3rdhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553dd1eab8eabb0f00e458Steve62Wed, 09 Oct 2013 07:28:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553dd1eab8eabb0f00e458
I've got a shirt on my back and shoes on my feet
#WINNING!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553dbe6bb3f7be5c2630c5الشاملWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:27:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553dbe6bb3f7be5c2630c5
<a href="http://albarak2.riadah.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://albarak2.riadah.org</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553d7fecad04a95ae7e54fHeevenStevenWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:26:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553d7fecad04a95ae7e54f
And among that top 0.7%, the wealth is distributed like another one of those pyramids.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525537d1eab8ea400300e454btruWed, 09 Oct 2013 07:02:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525537d1eab8ea400300e454
Unexpected for Joe tard Keynesio-socialo-fascist.
Joe, in the 30's you would have smell hitler's cock.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525537226bb3f77a4b2630c6Dan MysloWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:59:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525537226bb3f77a4b2630c6
Although I like the idea and data presented by the author...
+ I feel that displaying this data in the pyramid above may be slightly "misleading," (despite how professional it looks).
--> I would have preferred a pie-chart (to ensure proportions
--> Regardless of my previous reservations about the pyramid... I wish the author also included another pyramid that featured ONLY U.S. data (for comparison).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255369feab8ea417d00e463stWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:57:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255369feab8ea417d00e463
This chart is useful, but does not touch the real inequality. The super wealthy have huge amount of wealth "off the record": gold, art work, property held in private storage and offshore accounts. Religions, trust, foundations and non profits all act as wealth sinks. Wealth is a zero sum game, most of humanity only plays with a percentage, the majority is locked up based on generational bloodlines. A free and fair world would move towards meritocracy, not perpetuate or double down on aristocracy as we recently have been doing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255303f69bedd5d49e7e55fHmmmWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:30:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255303f69bedd5d49e7e55f
And this is where the top % live: <a href="http://www.greenwichmoves.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.greenwichmoves.com</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553027eab8ea1f6f00e460adam22Wed, 09 Oct 2013 06:29:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52553027eab8ea1f6f00e460
rich gets richer, so why we working for rich people? just do a day job and contribute minimum!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52552f6d69bedd7d4be7e558Doug in VirginiaWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:26:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52552f6d69bedd7d4be7e558
Almost the entire US population is already in the top 30% of the world.
That realization should help Henry, etc, understand why US wages are not likely to increase faster than anything measured on a global basis.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52552f0e6bb3f7533c2630c2Jim SWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:25:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52552f0e6bb3f7533c2630c2
This doesn't come close to showing the breakdown between "the ultra-super-rich, the super-rich, the rich, and everyone else." Sorry to disappoint you, but $1m doesn't make you ultra super rich.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255298169bedd0e35e7e57bkbbkkbWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:01:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255298169bedd0e35e7e57b
How do they define 'control the world's wealth'? To me it seems apparant that the majority of the 'civilized world' would fall into the gray category if we consider all assets that are truly our own to be wealth. For some older people who had good jobs and a lot of savings (and a little luck in life) this may even be the >1m category if we take into consideration their retirement funds.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255295a6bb3f7472c2630e0lukmanleongWed, 09 Oct 2013 06:00:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255295a6bb3f7472c2630e0
0.000001% billionairehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/525528b16bb3f7082b2630ddhuh?Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:58:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525528b16bb3f7082b2630dd
i don't get what you're trying to say either...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255274469bedd2735e7e565crusader70Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:52:04 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5255274469bedd2735e7e565
What has that to do with anything.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525524d9eab8ea755e00e456mario not henryWed, 09 Oct 2013 05:41:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/525524d9eab8ea755e00e456
Joe so where You belong in this pyramid???? It's easy to vilify people on the top when You pretend that You don't belong there. You portrait Yourself as they are representative, but it is not true picture. So be honest and disclose Your wealth and then we can start talking about it.